Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 2012/LB AND 2013/LB OF 1992-93 versus I.T.AS. NOS. 2012/LB AND 2013/LB OF 1992-93

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Section 13, 32 (3) and 156 of the property, the appellant returned the proceeds of the error which was considered due to the purchase of the investment property, but the assessing officer himself assessed the DIMD. (A) was also confirmed. The same tribunal set aside the ITO to re-examine the question of investment in property and at the same time directed the CIT (A) to dismiss the application under section 156, which would include the sale projections. About specific land was not included on the ITO. And the application for correction under section 156 of the CET (A) estimate was retained without being dealt with; the appellate authorities, in addition to examining the appellant, had justified the directions of both infringement tribunals, Therefore, the authorities' orders below were unstable best law firm from Shankiari lawyer